Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  MONTAUKs with Engines Above 330-lbs

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   MONTAUKs with Engines Above 330-lbs
jimh posted 03-26-2004 09:14 AM ET (US)   Profile for jimh   Send Email to jimh  
If you have a classic MONTAUK and your engine weight is 330-lbs or more, it would be interesting to hear your comments regarding how well the boat tolerates the high engine weight.

Does water tend to come over the transom? In what situations? Backing? Decellerating? Normal forward speed operation?

Is the engine splash well back-filled from its drains and constantly full of water?

Are there adverse effects to the boat static trim from the engine weight?

Does the boat have any tendency to porpoise or otherwise appear to be affected by the engine weight?

As always, first hand reports of direct observations are much preferred.

Legobusier posted 03-26-2004 10:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for Legobusier  Send Email to Legobusier     

I've got a '87 Montauk w/a '98 Honda 90 on it...I think the engine is just under 370#.

I only picked up the boat this past weekend, so my experience with the boat is somewhat limited but was very impressed with the perfomance. Here's a copy of a recent post of mine on the subject of the 90 Honda on a Montauk:

I have the exact setup, '98 Honda 90 on a '87 Montauk - just picked it up this weekend. After reading many hours of posts on this board about it being too heavy, etc. I was a bit concerned about its performance. I can tell you I am no longer concerned.

We took it out (my maiden voyage) with 3 adults and 3 kids (probably 700 pounds total), 3/4 tank of gas (24 gallon tank) in about 2' seas - pretty rough. Hole shot was very fast and got up to 38 mph by gps @ 6000 rpm. I was VERY impressed with it - especially in those conditions & with that much weight. I suspect top speed will be 42 or so with just me and a nice clean day - plenty fast.

It is an imposing (size) engine, and is certainly heavy, but I don't think the boat sits too far down in the stearn - I'm sure some here might disagree. Here's some pics if you're interested:

Fuel tank is under the seat and battery is under the console, so that helps with the weight. I have no doubt the performance of a 2 stroke 90 would be better, but the 4 stroke has it's advantages despite it's weight. I think it's a nice match.

I didn't experience any porpoiseing at all and didn't get any water over the transom during decelleration. Didn't try accellerated reverse. Splash well drains ARE under the waterline by about 1 1/2" - 2" (you can see how much water stays in the wells in one of the photos.

Personally, I don't think the boat is adversely effected by the weight of this engine. Obviously many people on this forum disagree, but I'm quite happy with it.

Hope this helps.

JBCornwell posted 03-26-2004 10:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for JBCornwell  Send Email to JBCornwell     
I have a Suzuki DF70 on my 1980 Montauk. Either 336# or 356#, depending on whose specs you read.

Upon installation I moved the battery to the console.

No negative results from the engine weight to report. Static trim is about the same as with the OMC 100 I removed.

Red sky at night. . .

DaveS posted 03-26-2004 12:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for DaveS  Send Email to DaveS     
I asked CBennett from Whaler just about the same question...he response was:

Where there was (technically) no maximum engine weights placed on the 1989
models (four strokes not around back then...) the recommend max. engine weight would be the same as the Classic Montauk...410lbs. As stated on the brochures...Exceeding the recommended engine weight may:

1) put the interior floor scuppers under water,
2) cause the boat to porpoiseat mid-throttle and
3) increase time to plane.

In general, the lighter the engine combination on your boat, the better it
will perform. Everything would depend on your particular needs. The
auxiliary engine should be considered as part of the overall engine weight.

Bigshot posted 03-26-2004 02:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Same as JB. Boat sits fine at rest. Rear drains fill up the splashwell about 1/2" so that basically the water is just flowing from one hole to the other, a gecko could stand in the middle and not drown. If I put a cinder block on the front hatch, they come completely out of the water. I used to do this on my old hull to keep from growing slime.

The ride is substantially better than with the lighter 90 Yamaha being weight is farther aft and it smoothes out the ride in chop. I can stay on plane at least 17mph so it has no real effect there either(no fins). If I pull throttle all the way back water does NOT come over the transom. If I reverse it does not either but will if I goose it due to the jackplate. When I goose it the water slams into the transom and runs up the back into the well, would not happen if without plate. This is mainly due to the fact that my engine is almost 6" above the transom bottom. I have owned Montauks with 250-350 engines and I find the heavy is not bad at all. I would not want to go more than 375 or so....but might renig that if I had more experience with one.

tully_mars posted 03-27-2004 07:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for tully_mars  Send Email to tully_mars     
My Montauk has the 75hp Eninrude FICHT which is around 365lbs. Boat runs fine and doesn't seem to sit in the water to deep in the stern. I do have the battery and oil tank under the console to remove some excess weight and create more room.

A friend of mine just repowered a 17' Newport which had a 120 Evinrude on it with a 115 Suzuki 4-stroke. I think this motor weighs in at 410lbs. I haven't ridden in the new setup yet, but he claims it does not porpoise. As far as the boats attitude at rest can't comment yet. He does have this motor on a jack plate.

Capt. TM

SS17 posted 03-29-2004 11:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for SS17    
I put 5 hours on my 1988 17 SSL/2002 Honda 90 this past weekend. Turnining a stainless 17" prop.

At rest it does have a bow up static trim, and the splash well drains are about 1 1/2 - 2 inches under. I have the battery at the transom, and had 5-11 gallons in the rear mounted fuel tank. Nothing in the foward anchor locker. The rear deck adds weight as well. At rest the torpedo of the engine is touching the water.

Backing up at idle will not cause water to flow over the transom unless I rev up well beyond idle and water piles against the trasom. I had to try to get it to do this. With the 90 backing speed at idle is pretty fast anyway.

No water comes over the transom when coming off plane.

Minimium planing speed is 16-17 mph with full trim down. Fast cruise is 25+ mph at 4,000, max speed 39+ @ 6050. Time to plane is around 3 seconds or less.

At 3500 rpm full lock turns will cause the boat to fall of of plane unless throttle is applied at the apex of the turn, but it is very stable. The boat does not porpoise (even with 2 adults and 2 children) seated on the rear bench behind the consoles. It will porpoise if you trim up at very slow planing speeds, but at cruising speed the engine can be raised to an ideal thrust angle with no porpoise. At full throttle you can trim way up until the boat chine walks.

With the 4 of us seated in the rear (about 400 lbs) the boat performs well. Jumped onto plane with no problem whatsoever at partial throttle.

With 7 gallons in the tank yesterday afternoon I took one last ride by myself for 22 miles. I had a reserve 2 1/2 gallon can in case I ran out, but didn't need it.

Stan posted 03-29-2004 01:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for Stan  Send Email to Stan     
I have a 1972 Montauk and just replaced my 1973 85 hp Mercury with a 115 Suzuki 4-stroke (around 410 lbs). It sits a little lower in the water and occasionally I will get some water in the splash well through the drain holes. Other wise the boat performs well. Top speed with 3 adults and normal gear is 47 mph. My gas milage has increased from 40 miles on a 12 gallon tank to over 65 miles.
Bigshot posted 03-29-2004 02:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Wow....she must fly compared to that old 85. My 70hp 4 stroke would fetch about 120+ miles on that 12 gallon tank @ cruise, then again your 115 is almost double the hp, hence almost double the burn.
jimh posted 03-29-2004 10:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
These first-hand experiences with MONTAUKs powered by engines weighing more than 330-lbs are much appreciated. Please keep them coming.
Joe Kriz posted 03-29-2004 10:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Joe Kriz  Send Email to Joe Kriz     
I got tired of trying to remember all the different weights of these engins so I went to the Specifications page for the different manufactures.

These are the weights of the different 4 Stroke Engines.

115 = 496 lbs
90 = 373 lbs
75 = 373 lbs

115 = 416 lbs
90 = 416 lbs
70 = 335 lbs

115 = 386 lbs
90 = 386 lbs
75 = 386 lbs

115 = 402 lbs
90 = 370 lbs
70 = 370 lbs

Most of the above weights are "Dry" but some did include the prop while others did not...

Joe Kriz posted 03-30-2004 04:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Joe Kriz  Send Email to Joe Kriz     
And now for the 2 Strokes

115 = 348 lbs
90 = 303 lbs
75 = 303 lbs

115 = 358 lbs
90 = 261 lbs
70 = 228 lbs

115 = 335 lbs
90 = 335 lbs

Evinrude E-Tech
90 = 305 lbs
75 = 305 lbs

As you can see from the manufacturers listed weights, there are not many outboards that fall below the 330 lb category you are inquiring about. There are no 4 Stroke engines below 330 lbs and only 3 below 330 lbs In the 2 Stroke, 90 HP rating, ...

There are a few other Manufacturers but I think I listed the majority of the Major players..

Rick Dewees posted 03-30-2004 05:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for Rick Dewees  Send Email to Rick Dewees     

I know you expected a few whatabouts. So, what about Clark Roberts' ideal weight/power matches for the Montauk: the Mercury 60 hp EFI four stroke (248) and the 60 hp two stroke (219).

LHG posted 03-30-2004 07:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Also, Suzuki's 2004 PRINTED catalog, just released, now shows the 70HP as 359#. Same for the 60 HP model.

Also, Mercury Optimax 75 & 90 are 360#, while the 115 is 375#.

The two "clean" engine weight champions are the Mercury 60 EFI (and Yamaha version of this engine also), and the E-Tec 75/90's.

After those, it's a big weight jump up to the Optimax 75 & 90's, and Suzuki/Johnson 60/70's.

Joe Kriz posted 03-30-2004 07:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for Joe Kriz  Send Email to Joe Kriz     
Thanks for the update on the weights LHG..
I got all the above weights from the current Web Pages as of last night. I guess some of them don't have the 2004 information yet...

Rick, I sent you an email but I thought I might post it here...

This is stricly my opinion... (I know, everyone has one)...
Most people want to power their Classic 16/17 hull with as much power as they can, hence some of them are even overpowering with the 115 HP.
I don't think I would ever overpower a hull except in the case of the new Montauk MT170. Let me explain about the 170 first...

The 170 is rated for only 90 HP yet the Mercury 90 HP 4 Stroke is a carbureted engine and weighs in at 386 lbs... NOW, the 115 HP 4 Stroke Mercury is EFI and weighs the same as the 90 HP at 386 lbs... I also think the 170 can take the power without causing safety problems.. I think the EFI will run better and is probably more fuel efficient then the 90 HP.

Now for the Classics...
I had a 70 HP 2 stroke on the back of my 1978 Montauk... I would not want any less power.... The hull was rated for 100 HP although no one seems to make that size anymore... So, 2 choices for me... Either a 70/75 HP or a 90 HP...

Choices for me:
1. Suzuki/Johnson 70 HP 4 Stroke at 335 lbs. (New Weight = 359 lbs according to LHG's findings)
2. Evinrude E-Tech 90 HP 2 Stroke at 305 lbs.

I am not sold on 4 Strokes yet and the older 2 Strokes are really going to be obsolete... The older 2 Strokes in this size range also use more fuel, smoke more, and are carbureted.....

I think if a person wants a 4 Stroke, they should go with the Suzuki/Johnson 70 HP... Unless of course they are not concerned with super high speeds. Then a 50 or a 60 HP.....

I think if a person does NOT want a 4 Stoke, then they should really look at the new engine from Bombardier... The Evinrude E-Tech 90 HP 2 Stoke.. I would not consider the E-Tech 75 HP as it weighs the same as their 90 HP... 305 lbs each..... These new engines are just as quiet as the 4 Strokes, just as fuel efficient (maybe even better), Smokeless, and from the reports have much better performance overall, including the hole shot.....

Again, just my Opinion from what I wanted out of a 16/17 Classic hull......

jimh posted 03-31-2004 05:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Thanks for the round-up on current engine weights. Recommendations for re-power--that's a different topic.

If you have an engine that weighs more than 330-lbs on the transom of your classic MONTAUK 17, please let us know the following:

Does water tend to come over the transom? In what situations? Backing? Decellerating? Normal forward speed operation?

Is the engine splash well back-filled from its drains and constantly full of water?

Are there adverse effects to the boat static trim from the engine weight?

Does the boat have any tendency to porpoise or otherwise appear to be affected by the engine weight?

I am most interested in first hand observations and experiences.

Salmon Tub posted 03-31-2004 12:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
A question regarding actual and posted engine weight. Do some, all or none of these weights actual or "shipping" weights which may include the weight of controls, and in some cases, some sort of small fuel tank?
LHG posted 03-31-2004 01:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
The answer is no, as all engines are shipped dry and without prop. Controls, tanks and props are all extra cost and not packaged with the motor.
DaveS posted 03-31-2004 02:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for DaveS  Send Email to DaveS     
Just a quick question...are we taking single engines over 330#'s or are we talking combined? Ex: My 1992 90hp evinrude weighs in at 301 but when you throw in the kicker at 55#''s at 356#'s, but who's counting?

Have a great day...


Joe Kriz posted 03-31-2004 03:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Joe Kriz  Send Email to Joe Kriz     
Sorry Jimh,

It wasn't my intention to make it a recommendation post but rather a point of information post about engine weights over/under 330 lbs....

We don't have many choices in engines under 330 lbs these days in the popular 70, 90 HP size for the 16/17 hull. None in the 4 Stroke series. Only a couple in the 2 Stroke series that will meet the upcoming EPA standards...

I'll leave this for another topic down the road...

raberwhaler posted 04-01-2004 06:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for raberwhaler  Send Email to raberwhaler     
I own a 1976 Montauk. Repowered with a 1998 90 hp Honda that I believe weighs 389 lbs.

The motor provides plenty of power and jumps on plain easily even with 5 people and a full load of gear. The boat does tend to squat a little stern heavy. At rest the well does fill about halfway with water. It does not spill into the boat though even on quick deceleration.Normal reverse not a problem with water coming in...quick reverse in choppy conditions does allow splash over the transom.My only concern is while trolling in a following sea. I have come to be very concious and cautious not to allow more than two adults in the stern. I havent yet taken one over the stern but with a good sized two or three footer the water is very close to coming over.

I do experience porpoising at mid range throttle.

Pardon my naiveity (and spelling) but I dont know what static trim is.....Raber

gcl posted 04-01-2004 09:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for gcl  Send Email to gcl     
My 16', 1971 classic Whaler (Nauset, not Montauk)is equipped with a 90 hp Evinrude Ficht, which according to the owner's manual, is 349 lbs. To answer the questions posed:
No water over the transom.
No water being backfilled into engine splash well.
No problems with static trim.
No porpoise effect.

Yes, I am very happy with the performance of the engine and boat. I hope you find this information useful.

tully_mars posted 04-02-2004 10:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for tully_mars  Send Email to tully_mars     
To complete my original post which I left uncompleted:

1972 (16'7) w/ 2002 75hp Evinrude FICHT at 365lbs. Battery and oil tank mounted in console, 18gallon fuel tank under the seat.

(Answers to specific questions)

Does water tend to come over the transom? In what situations? Backing? Decellerating? Normal forward speed operation?

***Water does not come over the transom when backing. Some water in the spillwell when boat is at rest, a little more when backing. Forward speed operation is normal. No water over transom when coming off of a plane.

Is the engine splash well back-filled from its drains and constantly full of water?

***As stated above, about 1 in of water in engine spill well at rest from the single drain tube.

Are there adverse effects to the boat static trim from the engine weight?

***With only myself in the boat at any speed on a full plane, I can trim the boat 3/4 of the full trim range before starting to porpoise. I have noticed this though as normal compared to other 17 Whalers I have ridden in.

Does the boat have any tendency to porpoise or otherwise appear to be affected by the engine weight?

***Boat does not seem to be adversely affected by engine weight.

Capt. TM

GA76er posted 04-04-2004 09:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for GA76er  Send Email to GA76er     
I need to repower my '76 Montauk. it has a 1975 Johnson 75 hp long shaft on now. so I need to replace with another long shaft?
Bigshot posted 04-05-2004 03:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Well....long shaft engines were 20" and short were 15". Today, 15" engines are hard/impossible to find over 40hp so you want a 20" engine for your boat. If you tell most dealers you need a long shaft 70hp they "may" think you mean 25". When referring to your engine, use 20" to save ANY confusion.

A modern 70hp or even 60hp will outperform the current 75 you are running....just FYI.

captreils posted 04-06-2004 11:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for captreils  Send Email to captreils     
one of the boats that I run for TowBoatUS is an old Montauk with a 1994 140 Evinrude. Two 12gal fuel tanks were mounted in the console along with the oil tank. Not sure how much the motor weighed, water over the transom was never an issue unless I was really pulling on something hard in rough seas. When running at higher speeds, especially when trimmed up, the boat would chine walk. Not sure on the top speed, the boat has no speedo or GPS, and was underpropped for better pulling. WOT is around 7000 RPMs but you don't run it that fast for more than a couple seconds. When comming out of the hole you have to hold on for dear life.
andygere posted 04-06-2004 02:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
My '79 Montauk had well over 330 lbs. between the 85 h.p. Johnson and 15 h.p. Johnson, both 2-strokes. I also had dual batteries mounted in the stern. It sat a bit low at static trim, but not so much that I was willing to relocate the batteries to the console. In snotty conditions, it would splash over the stern now and then if you stood back there to fight a fish, but I never thought it was a serious problem. Performance was great, no problems at all with porpoising, handled great in head and following seas, etc. The boat planed out fast, and pulled skiers well and behaved quite nicely overall. I did have a Whale Tail brand foil on the anticav plate, not a true hydrofoil, but more of a big aluminum trim tab. It also made a convenient boarding step.

Approximate motor weights (from memory):
1979 Johnson 85 (non VRO) 279 lbs
1980 Johnson 15 75 lbs
OMC kicker bracket 10 lbs.

andygere posted 04-07-2004 10:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
I saw several Classic 17's at the Monterey Harbor today and have the following observations:

The first was a Montauk with a Honda 90. It sat a bit low in the stern, and had a 28 gallon Tempo in front of the console. No battery was visible in the stern, so assumably it was inside the console.

The second was also a Montauk with a Honda 90, but it also had a Honda 9.9 kicker. This boat sat very low in the stern, and like the first, had a 28 gallon tempo in front of the console where the cooler seat usually goes. There was no battery in the stern, but there were two large bilge pumps (~750 gpm each).

The third was a Sakonnet with twin Yamaha 50's (2-stroke). This boat sat high on it's lines, with several more inches of freeboard at the transom than the two Montauks with the Honda 90's. The motors were bolted directly (no jackplates), and with the integral oil tanks were rigged very cleanly. It didn't look like the transom was cut to fit them, but it if was, a good job was done of it so it looked stock. I couldn't find another 16'7" hull in the area to compare it to. I imagine this rig would plane easily on a single engine. Fuel tanks were in the console, and batteries in the stern.

The final boat was a CPD 17 (alert?) with an Evinrude E-Tech 90. This boat sat high on it's lines, with several inches of bottom paint showing above the water line on the transom. The drain tubes in the splashwell were above the water, and the splashwell was dry. The E-tech did not look much larger than the Yamaha 50's, and seemed like an ideal size for rigging in twin configurations on larger boats. Perhaps a 115 h.p. version of this motor will be suitable for rigging twins on the classic 22 hull.

BQUICK posted 04-08-2004 01:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for BQUICK  Send Email to BQUICK     
I like the old Merc 6 cyls....300 lbs regardless of power.....90 to 150 hp.


Lou posted 04-09-2004 12:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for Lou  Send Email to Lou     

I pretty much second Tully's remarks. I have a 72 Montauk w/ a 2002, 115 Ficht (362lb - I believe).

When backing in relatively calm water or in minimal chop - I do not notice any water over the transom. In moderate to heavy chop I do get an occasional wave over the back.

At rest there is minimal water in the splash well . W/ the motor trimmed completely out of the water & tied at the dock (empty) the well is dry. W/ one person on board and trimmed - maybe 1" or so.

If does porpoise if trimmed more than 50% up w/ all but the heaviest of loads (# of passengers). It always is very easy to trim to compensate (in other words - I never let it porpoise).

Battery is in the back of boat and oil reservoir under the console. One 12 gallon tank and one 6 gallon tank under the seat aft of the console. It rides and runs excellent and the wt. of the motor is no issue whatsoever. Hope this helps.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.